How to stop the Mexican and other cartels …


Many years ago, I gave my opinion here on this subject. My opinion is based on: 1- The belief that even cartelistas fear death, 2- The US possesses a strong, well experienced set of commando forces in SOCOM, 3- The US possesses clandestine HUMINT assets that do not look, act or sound like American soldiers.

My proposal is that the US should create a special federal court in which significant cartel figures should be tried in absentia for their crimes against the American people and if convicted condemned to death. “Kill or capture” orders would then be issued to SOCOM.

The aforementioned HUMINT assets would be tasked against the condemned so that a target package could be created and passed to the commando types.

The HUMINTERS would not be involved in any way in the actual strike so as to preserve them for future use,

The SOCOM commandos would take out the condemned in a manner thought suitable

Would there be friendly casualties in such a campaign? Yes, but the costs now being inflicted on the people of the USA outweigh such casualties.

Should the Mexican government be informed? No. The Mexican government cannot be trusted ia covert action against the cartels. pl

This entry was posted in Mexico, The Military Art, Whatever. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to How to stop the Mexican and other cartels …

  1. Bill Roche says:

    Pat I c/n agree more. W/O any knowledge of military particulars on the southern border I’ve had a more direct answer about the cartels; kill them. Begin a military opn to kill them whenever found. Flck the Mexican gov’t, they have not been America’s friend since the M/A War (and no wonder). They remain Anti-American. “Where there is a will, there is a way”; but America d/n have the will. We are no longer a nation but a divided people who neither trust nor like one another. Parting will not bring much sorrow. The question is, of course, how to divide w/o violence.

    • wizz says:

      Wouldn’t such special military operations be a continued violation of Mexico’s sovereignty?

    • Deap says:

      Czech Republic and Slovakia had a peaceful separation since they never should have been put together in the first place. For those of us who mostly only knew the once Czechoslovakia.

      I agree – the drift and passions has grown too deep, plus too many illegals now are simply not invested in life in America, its history, its language, its traditions, its culture. We see fracture points now all the time in California.

      May seem trivial but we are having rash of all night illegal fireworks, in our very high fire prone area, in the neighborhoods with very high numbers of illegals and their families (may include anchor babies who also exist only on the periphery).

      Community warnings go out against fireworks, but they are ignored along with a total disregard of neighbors dogs and sleep. It is one thing to know there is one day where this is celebrated – July 4 – but that is a meaningless event for this group. In fact they love knowing they are annoying.

      Legal fireworks sales are still allowed in parts of the county, but they are totally illegal in our town. This is what it is like in just one way, after leaving the back door open and have two decades of “progressive” enabling of illegal immigration and sanctuary cities. As well as too many local exploiting scab labor. That too.

      Kamala Harris got it right when she said our immigration policy is broken. But she was 100% wrong when she tried to blame Trump. This huge new influx we can no longer pretend to absorb is all on the Biden-Harris watch.

      • morongobill says:

        Don’t forget all the rooster crowing and loud thumping bass music. My pet peeves, living in the barrio with my Latina girlfriend.

  2. jld says:

    That would probably be effective but this is extremely short-sighted, opening a Pandora box you seemingly have no idea of.
    – What would prevent other state powers to do the same for other purposes, possibly in stealth mode (Iran, North-Korea), Westphalian sovereignty was arrived at for some reason.
    – Once established what would prevent obscure state powers to use it for other purposes (akin to Obama “droning”) given the dereliction of American and other worldwide governments this is not a rhetorical question.

    • TTG says:


      Iran already tried to execute a kidnapping in Brooklyn last year. What stopped it? It was our intelligence, counter-intelligence and police capabilities. That’s what would prevent other state powers, or even the cartels themselves, from doing this in the US. It’s already a reality, like our droning, Israel’s assassinations in Iran and Lord knows what else.

    • Barbara Ann says:


      Westphalian Sovereignty is a useful concept. I believe it is critically important for states to retain sovereignty in era of surpranational bodies like the UN, the EU and especially NGO’s like the WHO. The power play between sovereign states is healthy and necessary in order to prevent the advent of a world government – the arrival of which would be an unmitigated disaster for mankind. Part of that power play is the exercise of legitimate interests in neighboring states (as distinct from R2P adventures in far off places).

      Westphalian Sovereignty is less useful in considering whether and to what extent nations should exercise those interests abroad. That determination must and will always be made on a purely pragmatic basis. In this case we should ask “what is the worst that could happen?”. The capture of some commandos or the PR disaster of an operation gone wrong with significant ‘collateral damage’ is the answer, I guess. Decapitating the cartels and putting the temor de Dios into the bosses’ would-be replacements may be worth the risk.

  3. A.Pols says:

    That’s pretty radical, to send commandos into another country to kill selected citizens of that country. And what a precedent it would set. Could it work? Maybe for awhile, but it would come to pass that, if it happened enough, such commandos might face summary execution as terrorists and then what would we do…
    Seems like an A-1 bad idea.

  4. Personanongrata says:

    My proposal is that the US should create a special federal court in which significant cartel figures should be tried in absentia for their crimes against the American people and if convicted condemned to death. “Kill or capture” orders would then be issued to SOCOM.

    Your proposal is a recipe for unmitigated disaster.

    The boondoggle known as the 18th Amendment/Volstead Act (aka Prohibition) clearly shows that government can never stop human wants/desires – history shows this effort was an abject failure. What alcohol prohibition wrought was violence and corruption across all of the US.

    The drug war boondoggle has been an even greater failure. Persons who wish to ingest illicit drugs are already doing so – within a 1 mile radius of your home you can find a plethora of illicit substances for sale. Drugs are also plentiful in prisons and jail houses across the US. Laundering drug cartel money has become a multi-billion dollar business for US banks/businesses.

    The US government has squandered over a trillion dollars since the drug wars stillborn inception 50 years ago.

    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from website of the Marshall Project found within a report titled:

    Inside The Nation’s Overdose Crisis in Prisons and Jails
    Behind bars, drug use is rampant and uniquely deadly, new data shows.

    From 2001 to 2018, the number of people who have died of drug or alcohol intoxication in state prisons increased by more than 600%, according to an analysis of newly-released data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In county jails, overdose deaths increased by over 200%.

    Drug cartels have infiltrated the entirety of the US north/south/east/west. Cartels have also infiltrated elements of local, state and federal governments/agencies.

    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website of a report titled:

    Mexican Drug Cartels Have Infiltrated All Of These US Cities

    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website of a report titled:

    The FinCEN Files

    Thousands of secret suspicious activity reports offer a never-before-seen picture of corruption and complicity — and how the government lets it flourish.

    In all, suspicious activity reports in the FinCEN Files flagged more than $2 trillion in transactions between 1999 and 2017. Western banks could have blocked almost any of them, but in most cases they kept the money moving and kept collecting their fees.

    Legalization of all drugs is the solution that will reap the most benefits for this nation.

    There will not be a tsunami of new users seeking out mind altering substances a drugs are already widely available to those who wish to use them.

    Legalization will unclog courts/prisons/jails across the nation. It will remove the violence associated with the sale of drugs. It will ensure a pure unadulterated product is available reducing hospitalizations.

    Is legalization a perfect solution?

    No – there is no such mythical beast.

    However seeking to escalate 50 years of failed US government policies of incarceration/eradication/incarceration into the realm of assassination/kidnapping fully exposes the drug war for the failure that it has always been.

    • Bill Roche says:

      Psngr you offer a simplistic Libertarian remedy which will result in the death of thousands of users. Me too. Let the users die and “decrease the superfluous population”. Dickens or Darwin the result w/b the same. And no endless public paid programs of rehab. You gotta let the drugs take their toll. When the dying is done, the cartels will have no customers left.

    • Fourth and Long says:

      I agree with you. The most addictive substance known to humankind?

      3, 2, 1 ding. Wrong.

      Nicotine. By far more addictive than anything else. Next on the list is benzodiazepenes. Which are legal with prescription in the US and around the world. They are so dangerously addictive that many people simply cannot stop because to do so is literally fatal. But the US and other doctors prescribe them anyway, almost always ignoring to warn people about the severe addictive risk and that they are designed to be used only for a few weeks. Else they simply don’t work and you need higher doses.

      Then there’s alcohol. Extremely addictive. Very very hard to quit for addicts – alcoholics – becomes a systemic crippling disease/dependency. Also often fatal to longtime users who quit cold turkey.

    • Steve says:


      I fully agree. Legalization and control of substances for addicts is the only method known to work, simply by eliminating the profit motive. Will they just move onto something else? For the most part they already have, usually people smuggling and sex slavery. At least that’s something worth the cost.

      The traditional approaches have so far failed dismally. “Decapitation”, whether it be drug cartels or violent non-state actors, have demonstrated time and again that when a group leader is assassinated or even jailed the group fragments, leading to smaller groups led by young radicalized taking up the leadership role.

      In Juarez for example there’s a cartel on each street corner and turf wars are an everyday occurrence, with “collateral damage” off the charts. Or ask the Taliban who have spent twenty years being hunted down, their friends and families killed in night raids or bombings.

      While recognizing that many want to see extreme, medieval style violence being meted out to them, the overwhelming evidence shows that it simply begets more and more killing. But I suppose if it’s not on their doorstep they don’t care much as long as they get to watch the blood sport….

      • Pat Lang says:

        Laughable. you are a natural born victim.

        • Steve says:


          No, just somebody who looks for viable solutions to problems rather than reaching for the beheading axe:)

          • Pat Lang says:

            “Mexican sovereignty,” “The Westphalian order,” “beheading.” a bullet in the chest at 500 yards is what I am talking about. Do you have any real idea of the damage being done to the US? You belong in Bidrn’s State Department/

          • Steve says:

            Yes, I do know how much damage has been done. The Mexican and Columbian cartels supplied demand relentlessly and took a hammering for doing so, yet the problems are not solved. Indeed they’ve worsened – with the help of legal and crazily available pharmaceuticals handed out like MnMs. Will the Sacklers and their pushers be on the hit list? Of course not, they’ve even been handed immunity for involvement in killing what, about 100,000 Americans a year?

            So much attention is paid to the drugs and their effects but why is there no exploration of the underlying causes of the misery that pervades so much of the country? Here’s a good place to start:

  5. TTG says:

    I agree that this would be a worthy endeavor. It’s not just drugs that the cartels are trafficking. Human trafficking and sex trafficking are now a large part of their business. You’re right, we have the special operations and intelligence needed to carry out this mission. And it should stay unilateral. I wouldn’t bother with extradition at all, all kill, no capture.

    We need extremely deep cover US intelligence operatives and extremely well vetted indigenous intelligence and support agents. I was in a SMU that was dabbling in this kind of mission, a mission of extremes. This is very doable.

    When I went through MOTC, I knew my first assignment was to be this unit, but no one would tell me what it was, where it was or what I would be doing. They just said, “You’re perfect for this.” One Army WO C/O told me I won’t be meeting my agents in bars and parks, I’d be meeting them at the third rattlesnake on the left. I did enjoy the assignment and I met a few old 10th Group buddies there.

    • LeaNder says:

      I’d be meeting them at the third rattlesnake on the left.

      Would you be so kind to decrypt this bit for me, TTG? Rattlesnakes on the left? 😉

      • TTG says:


        He meant I was destined to deal with unsavory, nasty-assed sources and assets in unsavory, nasty-assed environments. It would be operating in a land of “No Country for Old Men” rather than embassy or cocktail parties. He was partially right.

        • Pat Lang says:

          I seem to remember that both the old sheriff and his father were formidable. I identify with the man with the cattle killer.

          • TTG says:


            I can fully understand the self-reliant fatalism of the Javier Bardem character, but I can’t say I identify with him. I’ve read that was the most accurate portrayal of a psychopath made on film. I do identify with the Tom Hanks character in “Road to Perdition.”

        • Deap says:

          From the poem Sailing to Byzantium …..”no country for old men”. For the next Trivial Pursuits session.

          • TTG says:


            I became aware of that only after the movie came out. I guess, in a way, the movie also ponders upon the nature of man’s immortal spirit.

  6. walrus says:

    However, there is “mission creep” which will not be resisted. Why stop at cartel bosses? Surely we should hit their chief of staff, deputy, etc., etc. Then what about the corrupt police chief facilitating the trade? The guy who knowingly supplies the production equipment? The bankers?…..Then one day it’s the political candidate in favor of decriminalization who we decide should be whacked.

    This is a very slippery slope.

    As far as drugs are concerned, legalize their use and possession by registered addicts and treat them as medical, not criminal, problems. It’s cheaper that way.

    • Fred says:

      “As far as drugs are concerned, legalize their use and possession…” This attitude gave us the Streets of San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, NYC’s subway, and the inspirational moral values of St. George Floyd – he of the trinity of televised funerals.

      • James says:


        I am a huge fan of Ex Baltimore Cop Michael Wood. He would disagree with you – he says quite clearly that the war on drugs has failed and is causing more problems than it is solving:

        I fear that the Colonel’s plan won’t work as we can kill all the cartel bosses that we like and they will only be replaced with other cartel bosses. There are enough people in Mexico who will be willing to risk death for fame, fortune, and chicas.

        • Fred says:


          Remind Ex-cop Michael Wood which party has run Baltimore’s government for decades. Perhaps he forgot what Trump said to the ‘civil rights’ icon Elijah Cummings about Baltimore’s political leadership.

  7. walrus says:

    P.S. Hang or behead the drug smugglers. In public, on prime time TV.

    • TTG says:


      Nah, you’re being too dramatic. Just kill the cartel leaders and those ambitious and greedy enough to take their place in the quickest and most efficient way possible. No fanfare. No frills. Leave all the enablers to the host country to deal with. Those in the US are a law enforcement and DOJ responsibility. Simplicity is a principle of war.

      • Mark Logan says:


        But with the enormous profits available, is there a reasonable chance of finding the last head of this Hydra? The Amsterdam solution may be the simplest.

        • TTG says:

          Mark Logan,

          The cartels are involved in a lot more than just illicit drugs. And 50 states will certainly not agree on anything like the Amsterdam solution.

          • Mark Logan says:

            That is true, it’s not feasible. We must go with what we can do, not what we might wish to be able to do. Removing the profit motive would be ideal though.

            The cartels are involved in a lot of other things mainly because they have money to launder and more of it than they know what to do with. Without the drug money they are just common criminals.

      • Pat Lang says:

        It is amusing how many people who have no idea how such intelligence or covert operations would be conducted blather on in the belief that some drivel they heard in a classroom is actually true.

  8. cobo says:

    This could not be done half-heartedly. It would need to begin right here in El Norte and go long and hard, no backing off. Certainly secrecy is important, but I think a network of Border Patrol and Sheriffs would need to prepare for blowback. Then, how far do you go? Do you go after corrupt officials and bankers, too. And the Mexican Millitary would need to be ready to lock down the organizations that have been decapitated and roll them up for good. Those would be my thoughts.

  9. Fourth and Long says:

    It’s a bit heavy handed to put it mildly. If it was supplemented with a campaign to round up the MDs and pharmaceutical executives who knowingly profit off of addicting and brain damaging millions of children and adolescents with experimental LEGAl drugs and abandoning them to a desert island inhabited by Komodo dragons, Gila monsters and Cobras then I’d give it a tentative thumbs up. Another thing — the trend in numerous US states is heavily toward legalization of formerly illegal drugs. So it’s likely another well intentioned idea whose time has passed. You might want to consider something more subtle like a bug spray of some sort or hordes of genetically engineered mosquitoes who can only survive on human blood which tests positive for cocaine.

    • TTG says:

      Fourth abnd Long,

      The MDs and pharmaceutical executives are DOJ’s turf. Whether state legalize many drugs or not in immaterial. The goal is to eradicate the present and future leadership of the foreign cartels.

      • Fourth and Long says:

        Expressed that way and so succinctly it is a commendable goal. Forgive my cynicism but if the military is one day directed to pursue that goal by the directors of the country I would estimate the chances as very high that their motivation will be similar to the British motivation for their opium sales to China. China had large quantities of things the British wanted – mainly ceramics and tea. But the Brits had nothing much that the Chinese wanted. So Britain needed to overcome that trade deficit. Enter opium, grown in “Inja’s sunny clime” (a British colony then) and sold within the territory of the Chinese Qing dynasty. Soon millions of addicts. So huge amounts were confiscated and burned by Qing authorities. Leading to the “Opium war” during which B occupied Hong Kong later ceded to B in the treaty of Nanking bc they won the wars.

        A program such as suggested here would be motivated by the desire to eliminate that trade sinkhole – tons of US currency going into coffers of foreign powers, whether directly to purely criminal elements or otherwise. Furthermore, the cocaine would be assimilated into the increasingly legal portfolio of once illegal drugs and reappear as it once was in the US itself – a pharmaceutical product and even as a beverage supplement for energy enhancing sports enthusiasts. Too lucrative to pass up. Such a program may for the little I know be already underway. My point is that if the military does get involved it will be for reasons of trade deficit and expanding profitable enterprises prised away and gussied up. Not for a feel-good boy scout project.

    • Pat Lang says:

      F and L
      Another weakling heard from.

  10. Lars says:

    It may make a good movie, but it is too simplistic and the unintended consequences would be numerous. And then there is the legal problem.

  11. jerseycityjoan says:

    This has a certain appeal but I am not sure the Mexicans would go along and we have so many of these people in our own country that I am not sure how much of a difference it would make overall.

    It would seem to me that we should go after the people who are here while at the same time taking steps to prevent new cartel members from being recruited within the US or coming across the border. We cannot use military in US but it seems to me there is lots we can do to squash the cartels and local gangs too like bugs in the US. For some reason, we choose to do nothing but chase the same people around different cities and counties across the US as they commit crime after crime and cycle in and out of prison.

    We should have gone after these groups like we did the Mafia years ago. Our passivity in the midst of all our big talk about crime and guns is astonishing to me.

  12. Poul says:

    What would the Cartels responds be in the USA? They have people on the US side of the border too.

    Ambushes on police, assassinations of government officials, IEDs on buses etc, etc.

    The War on Drugs have failed so I don’t see this policy as a way of deterring criminals from an extremely profitable trade.

    • Barbara Ann says:


      You don’t think killing them would be a deterrent – are you disagreeing with the Colonel’s first premise? The narcocorridos may lionize these folk, but I do not think the average narco boss thinks there are 72 virgins waiting for him in heaven. They are straightforward criminals and if they decided to respond as you suggest with a campaign of terror in the US it would be very short and very deadly for them. Besides which, it would be very bad for business.

      But this matter will remain the subject of Tom Clancy fictions. The US has the capability to mow the narco grass, but lacks the will even to build an effective wall along the southern border. AOC would probably want a photo op at the narco’s funerals.

      • Poul says:

        Has it been a deterrent now? How many grow old in the drug business.
        Money make Serbs and Kosovo-Albanians work together to smuggle drugs into the EU. It’s as powerful a motivator as belief in a cause.
        As for deterrent it works both ways.

        With standard Cartels policies as seen in Mexico etc. you can easily attack and massacre small American villages (200-400 people) in the entire country except Hawaii and Alaska. Kill highway patrol officers by the 100’s in drive-bys. Use IEDs on Greyhound buses.

        It can start as a process which no one can control or like the results of.

        You do not eliminate the motivation aka rewards of participation in the drugs trade with violence.

        • Pat Lang says:

          You don’t know enough SF soldier to have a valid opinion. When we hunt you, your days are numbered.

      • Poul says:

        Barbara Ann

        A practical example from the Philippines. No effect. I don’t see it having any effect in Mexico either.

  13. Babeltuap says:

    We are couping the wrong countries. Should have done Mexico instead of Ukraine. Get our “Zelinsky” puppet to crack down on the cartels.

  14. Deap says:

    It is war. It is an invasion. It is a degradation of every value we stand for in America.

    Of course, extreme measures against this scourge are appropriate. I wonder also how much protection racket money they are also absconding from the “legal” growers and sellers in California.

    Legal pot cultivation in my county, now the largest acreage in the state, changed the character completely, yet huge illegal grows remain in federal forest lands. Something dark is happening in this county.

    • Whitewall says:

      This is “The Reconquista” effort to regain the territory lost to the US nearly 200 years ago. Send a different army in different ways.

    • Fred says:

      Yawn. Demographics are destiny! Says the left since before ’65. Looks like ‘those people’ aren’t voting that way, and aren’t going back to the homeland either. They could certainly be inspired to reconquer their own country, taking it back from the cartels and the politicians in Mexico that support it, if anyone actually tried to do so.

  15. Rick says:

    Bumping off cartel leaders briefs well, but how would deniability be established? It wouldn’t take long before somebody figured out these cartel hits were being carried out by U. S. special ops. And if the U.S. doesn’t care about deniability, then skip the covert and clandestine shenanigans and get after it.

    • Pat Lang says:

      Volunteers for the campaign would have to accept that capture would result in disavowal. Al equipment would be foreign. Having served in such ops I can tell you that there would be no lack of volunteers from within SOF

  16. longarch says:

    It strikes me that SOCOM forces are probably most effective if they have a lot of practical experience, so (from the perspective of one who values readiness above diplomacy) the mission would be worthwhile if only to keep the SOCOM forces experienced with real-world commando missions. In terms of the US Constitution, I think the Founding Fathers would have approved — they would probably have written out “letters of marque and reprisal” and instructed the commandos to leave not a stone upon a stone. They might have instructed someone like John Paul Jones to lead such efforts.

    But in the case of targeted killings/captures of cartelistas, I would like to see some detailed proposals and estimates on the numbers of friendly and unfriendly people who would actually get killed.

    Would there be friendly casualties in such a campaign? Yes, but the costs now being inflicted on the people of the USA outweigh such casualties.

    Suppose the operation went on for three years. During those three years, how many cartel targets would be neutralized, and how many friendly casualties would get killed as collateral damage? I suspect that some people would lie by omission and others would lie directly. That is, I imagine that collateral damage might be under-reported by some auditors, whereas other critics would lie and falsely report unrelated deaths as collateral damage of this program.

    • Pat Lang says:

      you are funny. do you actually think that results can be predicted like in a phony business plan?

  17. JK/AR says:

    This may’ve been mentioned (fireworks in the boonies set for this evening so insufficient time to thoroughly read all comments).

    China’s “exporting” [seemingly] a largish amount of fentanyl to the cartels. Being used to “stretch” the supply of product the cartels are exporting to “us.”

    What to do about the China trade – sink a ship or two?

    I don’t have hardly a qualm in the world about what the Colonel’s proposal promises to the cartelistas but their, oh ‘enablers’ I suppose might be the correct term?

  18. Vince Turner says:

    Forget the ‘capture’ part. Just start the process of attrition. Get the intel, get to the ‘X’, terminate the target and get off the ‘X’. Next!

  19. jim ticehurst says:

    Colonel Lang…
    Its Good to see you Well Enough to be Back in The Saddle here And Making Your Positions on Various Issues Clear and Direct..Thats a Leader to me…And NOT for
    The Money and Power… That Motivates All Those You Mention..Clearly..

    Its about Preserving Our UNION..Our Republic..from ALL Enemys..Foreign and Domestic..And There Are Many..

    As to your Proposals…I Agree… President Trump the Summer of 2020…Proposed
    to Secretary of Defense Mark T Esper…that We Fire Patriot Missles into Mexico…Take Out The Cartels..and The Drug Labs..He Despised Them..and the Damage and Evil they Do…I Think Trump would have given your Ideas Serious Consideration..
    Covert Operations Have been Conducted before..Many Times..i/e Columbia..and World Wide..
    Its no longer Being considered …Despite the Vast damage to the United States…the 100,000 drug Deaths..The Organized Crime Syndicates..of many types…The Druggers and Street People Soiling American Streets…The Corruption of America Top Down…
    Without Remorse…Aided and Abetted..By Democrat Administrations all all Levels..

    Donald Trump Fired Mark T Esper on November 9th..2020…and Replaced Him
    With Christopher Miller…Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center..

    Esper Wrote a Tell All Book this Year..He was Highly Critical of a President like Trump…Who Felt it was His DUTY..To Preserve..Protect and Defend the United States… from ALL Enemys …Foreign and Domestic..

    Thank You Colonel..and All Like Minded…Who Give Inspiration..SST..

    • jim ticehurst says:

      “ALL Enemys..Foreign and Domestic..”

      Thats The OATH..Sworn to by POTUS ..The Senators..And Congress Persons.
      and The SUPREME COURT…

      Is an Enemy The Constitution…Or Commonly Understood..?

      Webster Definition…One that is Antagonistic to Another..

      2. One Seeking to Injure..Over Throw or Confound an Opponent..

      3..Something Harmful…or DEADLY..

      Also Look at ALL Synonyms…And Antonyms..(Amigos)

      It The OATH Sworn to..On A Bible..mere Theater ..And Meaningless..??

      WITHOUT Punishment for those who Violate or Break Thier OATH..of Office
      To The Citizens of The United States…???? A Mockery..

  20. walrus says:

    Col. Lang, I have no doubts that it can be done, however the question remains about effectiveness. How far up the supply chain can you get?

    IMHO, there is little being done in the USA in terms of harm reduction by legalization and medical means. The prison industry sees to that. Guess which approach is more expensive? Treating and managing addiction or locking people up?

    • Pat Lang says:

      what you suggest should be done in addition to my deterrent program for leaders.

      • walrus says:

        1. Decriminalize possession and use of non commercial quantities.

        2. Legalize/ build a medical recovery program including controlled use of substitutes.

        3. Hang knowing smugglers and commercial dealers.

        In other words, build an unbridgeable chasm between users and dealers.

        Stop incarcerating mere users – it’s expensive and pointless.

        Make drug use socially unacceptable starting with the “smart” cocaine users.

        one way to get instantly ostracized by me is for someone to tell me “everybody does it”. Everybody doesn’t.

    • Deap says:

      Treating addicts does require locking them up – most of the costs of incarceration are spent on inmate health care anyway. Jails and drug treatment are just starting to go hand in hand in my state.

      The out-patient model for addicts has been a failure, a very expensive failure since it requires the 24 hour services of multiple social workers for each addict.

      In our “progressive” and heavily impacted California town, the police allow active drug dealing to continue right next to the vagrant camps since our current legal system requires we accept their right to camp anywhere they want, unless we provide them free “alternative” housing.

      So they camp, pollute, set fires, harass the local community, destroy business and tourism, while running theft and prostitution rings right under out noses so they can buy more drugs. ACLU makes sure the headlines scream “we are not doing enough” when one predictably dies.

      No one is helped in this current non-incarceration model, and huge amounts of social and economic harm is inflicted on the community with our hands legally tied by activist Obama judges.

      While living in Switzerland after declaring how “perfect everything things seems to be”, the response was always ……that is because we hide our problems … darkly referencing the many Swiss sanitariums this country has long been known for. A problem-solving model we should investigate more thoroughly.

  21. Deap says:

    Good analysis of “legal pot” experience in California, as London explores legal pot in England – one in five admits to regular pot use in California and the fundamental lies about legal pot become obvious after six years experience in this state:

    1. It is addictive
    2. It does lead to stronger stuff
    3. It did not eliminate the massive drug cartels
    4. Illegal pot sales still out rank legal pot sales 2:1
    5. Promised tax revenues will never compensate for growing social costs
    6. Mental illness admissions among young people on the rise

    • jerseycityjoan says:

      Every state that has done this must experience the same problems. Yet who is stepping back from supporting legalization in the other states where it has not happened yet? That should not be hard.

      The ones who have it should certainly reconsider. It is costing them money and big problems

      Are they that afraid of their pot using voters?

  22. walrus says:


    1. It is addictive -yes, especially when used as self medication for stress by teenagers. There is no faster way to flush an education down the toilet than dope because it destroys short term memory and results in a spiralling academic failure Teachers can usually pick it when a kid goes from straight A’s to D minus in a month. However privacy laws forbid them to do much about it and the parents won’t thank them anyway.

    2. It does lead to stronger stuff- yes, if you can’t find a shrink that knows how to arrest the slide into heavy stuff. That happens when the dope doses are so large they cause vomiting.

    3. It did not eliminate the massive drug cartels – because people are still having to source it illegally.

    4. Illegal pot sales still out rank legal pot sales 2:1 – price is everything.

    5. Promised tax revenues will never compensate for growing social costs – social costs include $50,000 – $60,000 per year to jail someone, plus insurance premiums, security systems, police and court costs. Can you afford NOT to treat the problem as a medical issue?

    6. Mental illness admissions among young people on the rise – Yes, especially schizophrenia. You need to treat this as a medical problem. Until you do, concerned parents can’t even legally try to help their kids.

    • Deap says:

      The bulk of “incarceration costs” are the health care costs for the incarcerated anyway. So jail time is in fact already medical time. Just with the added bonus of getting these SOB’s off the streets.

  23. Deap says:

    Anyone who crosses our borders with fentanyl to sell on the streets, just voluntarily put a bullseye on their own forehead. It is about linking punishment to the nature of the crime.

    Might as well come across the border with suitcase dirty bomb and an already ticking timer. I personally support the War on Drugs. But I also despair at the depth of the ready market, waiting once they get across our borders.

    • TTG says:


      I think the majority of the fentanyl comes here by mail.

      • Fred says:

        The majority of fentanyl comes through mail that isn’t caught at customs? That sounds rather hard to believe.

        • TTG says:


          The fentanyl from China and India is almost exclusively coming through USPS. That’s how it’s getting into Canada as well (Canada Post). The Mexican fentanyl is coming by truck and car through CBP crossing points. The Laredo crossing point is a major gateway to I-35 and the entire country.

  24. JK/AR says:


    “Illicit fentanyl, primarily manufactured in foreign clandestine labs and smuggled into the United States through Mexico …”

    Not meaning to be disagreeable but apparently there’s some dispute concerning whether China and India nationals are simply going to their version of the post office, buying adequate postage, then simply dropping the stuff into their “Deliver to the US” slot.

    Too, there’s a modus operandi I’m passingly familiar with owing to, ‘a kinfolk’ [pardon the expression – the head honcho of the outfit gets kinda ‘out-of-sorts’ if the operators get, in any way, personally identifiable if you catch my drift]

    Anyway the shorthand M.O. is “Where there’s a poultry processing plant, there’s cartel activity” … And it seems to this humble hillbilly at least, that that’s highly likely because in those counties the Sheriff’s departments often as not have at their disposal automatic weapons or at least, quick access to such ‘kinfolk’ as I have who most definitely do have such disposal.

    (Now I will acknowledge that, in the instances where there’s envelopes containing ‘large denomination folding money’ that’s got intercepted – and made the news – more often than not Postal Inspectors are the ones who accept the credit.)

Comments are closed.